Air Scare
Voodoo math:
Leaving aside for a moment the dubious generalization of "toxic air pollutants," let's look at some numbers.
100 in 1,000,000 is one hundreth of one percent. The average margin of error in any given demographic sample is around three percent, so the statistical drift in their projection can be as much as three multipliers within two orders of magnitude. And that's assuming their baseline numbers for cancer rates for all of the factors lumped into "toxic air pollutants" are backed up by recordable data obtained through scientific rigor. Fat chance of that.
Let's put that into terms you can chew on, shall we?
Most people have been to a basketball or hockey game. The average enclosed arena in the U.S. has a capacity of about 20,000. Picture yourself seated in the arena with a full crowd; look around at all the people. Now pick two people. That would be the statistical rate increase the EPA is trying to say they can measure -- if we ignore the sample error and accompanying statistical drift, which may be as much as 600 people -- or none. Or 598 people (in this arena or another entirely) who would previously have some form of cancer but now will not, so that we can make the numbers balance. In other words, it's voodoo math -- and it's utterly meaningless.
This is what your tax money buys from the EPA. The reason for it is very simple: If you tell a government agency they have to spend a certain amount of money each year in order to continue their existence at current funding levels, (a so-called "superfund"), they'll certainly find ways to spend it -- but few of them will be very useful.
(EDIT: Math fix. Doh.)
Millions of people living in nearly 600 neighborhoods across the country are breathing concentrations of toxic air pollutants that put them at a much greater risk of contracting cancer, according to new data from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The levels of 80 cancer-causing substances released by automobiles, factories and other sources in these areas exceed a 100 in 1 million cancer risk. That means that if 1 million people breathed air with similar concentrations over their lifetime, about 100 additional people would be expected to develop cancer because of their exposure to the pollution.
Leaving aside for a moment the dubious generalization of "toxic air pollutants," let's look at some numbers.
100 in 1,000,000 is one hundreth of one percent. The average margin of error in any given demographic sample is around three percent, so the statistical drift in their projection can be as much as three multipliers within two orders of magnitude. And that's assuming their baseline numbers for cancer rates for all of the factors lumped into "toxic air pollutants" are backed up by recordable data obtained through scientific rigor. Fat chance of that.
Let's put that into terms you can chew on, shall we?
Most people have been to a basketball or hockey game. The average enclosed arena in the U.S. has a capacity of about 20,000. Picture yourself seated in the arena with a full crowd; look around at all the people. Now pick two people. That would be the statistical rate increase the EPA is trying to say they can measure -- if we ignore the sample error and accompanying statistical drift, which may be as much as 600 people -- or none. Or 598 people (in this arena or another entirely) who would previously have some form of cancer but now will not, so that we can make the numbers balance. In other words, it's voodoo math -- and it's utterly meaningless.
This is what your tax money buys from the EPA. The reason for it is very simple: If you tell a government agency they have to spend a certain amount of money each year in order to continue their existence at current funding levels, (a so-called "superfund"), they'll certainly find ways to spend it -- but few of them will be very useful.
(EDIT: Math fix. Doh.)
Labels: hysteria
posted by Jar(egg)head at 08:27
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home